Gerrymandering writ large

A map of Texas’ congressional districts during a hearing in Austin in August.
Credit...Brandon Bell/Getty Images

The supremes did it again, codifying the dubious practice of gerrymandering writ large. The term toadies applies to the big 6, the grammatically correct crew certifying the fact this is the worst sc in history.

Only two decades ago, all nine Supreme Court justices agreed that extreme partisan gerrymandering could violate the Constitution, though they differed on what courts should do about it.

On Thursday, by contrast, the court’s conservative majority allowed Texas to use voting maps made to disadvantage Democrats in the 2026 election, without a hint of constitutional difficulty. To the contrary, the majority chastised a lower court for not taking the state at its word that politics, not race, motivated the maps. The court, it said, had “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith.”

In the space of a generation, then, the Supreme Court’s attitude toward partisan gerrymandering has shifted from tolerating it as a necessary evil to embracing it as savvy politics.

The shadow docket strikes again.

In an unsigned opinion on Thursday, over the dissents of the three Democratic appointees, the majority protected the state’s new maps, overturning a lower court’s finding that race was improperly used to draw them. Indeed, the majority chastised the lower court for not taking the state at its word that politics rather than race inspired the maps.

Any questions?